Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-synapse-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 97201 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2008 02:55:19 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Nov 2008 02:55:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 39241 invoked by uid 500); 22 Nov 2008 02:55:28 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-synapse-dev-archive@synapse.apache.org Received: (qmail 39199 invoked by uid 500); 22 Nov 2008 02:55:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@synapse.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@synapse.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@synapse.apache.org Received: (qmail 39188 invoked by uid 99); 22 Nov 2008 02:55:28 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:55:28 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ruwan.linton@gmail.com designates 209.85.200.171 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.200.171] (HELO wf-out-1314.google.com) (209.85.200.171) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:54:03 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so1320861wfa.0 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:54:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=HYBnFM0HO33cKaX3JCtnT8X8dLrQfjx8ilwplw6mg/0=; b=LsJIsXpT+qHKGma+ZKsRQ1qdTFHYRA7nRv/L6/XC5jknK/b/1EVxd0/LmkMsh1Lvv/ rf2BPZcYFt/+q3w8t4x2NGlYkCtCmps7c/qAZrRBoU8GWh/ZY8HIAYFJSLBdFH9PbpKH BgFY6cMLuB1jDSr2orFr6KsMK/VLJOXvQvk2g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=rJZRWfiACXgzQ1gcI/5JL4wUnF+9Gr0qXpa9fpSDwGVxdf8hjEnnboTzxR3nz4eIJd 58BgKTS+f1Vhwsdb4rWIuQytKnHJhRhL5l5E/4JNhzVpPrev1uLWpvj8GDug5EC4r4sB pI61Ma9ODXuDsx+Hb4sNzxz5jG2H065ECZJh4= Received: by 10.142.81.7 with SMTP id e7mr571039wfb.158.1227322488333; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:54:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.86.5 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:54:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <672a01200811211854k2ca57ee2j281a27fa5991921b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:24:48 +0530 From: "Ruwan Linton" To: dev@synapse.apache.org, irantha@wso2.com Subject: Re: JTA support in Synapse: general question In-Reply-To: <49265B14.4060802@wso2.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_14818_1007674.1227322488322" References: <492054AB.2070305@apache.org> <49227CD3.2040908@opensource.lk> <88f5d710811201421q3c5e5bd9qab7a58837ccf858b@mail.gmail.com> <49261417.2040707@apache.org> <49265B14.4060802@wso2.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_14818_1007674.1227322488322 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Well, Irantha, it is required to support JTA standalone, but at the same time it is much more important to support the application server translations as well. Most of the time an ESB deployment is going to be on an existing Application Server, though we would like people using ours standalone most of the organizations tend to deploy it like this because of organizational standards and many a reasons. That is what my experience about the deployment of Synapse. So I think we need to support both... Thanks, Ruwan On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Irantha wrote: > On my view generally people like to have products that are easy to > configure and use. Most of the time its easy to configure and get something > working with a standalone product than with multiple products /clusters. > When somebody has to setup another application server to get transactions > working, there is more possibility that they will not try it at all or mess > it up. > I don't think most of the time people who are going to setup a ESB are > doing it for the enjoyment of their leisure time. But I may be wrong. > > Thanks, > Irantha > > > > > Asankha C. Perera wrote: > >> Paul / Andreas >> >> I definitely like being able to provide standalone JTA support without a >> JEE server - like we already support DataSources without a JEE server. >> >> Looking at real world JTA use, one would most definitely agree that JMS >> and DB's are the most common, though there can and certainly will be other >> resource managers. Typically a JMS provider (since we don't bundle one), a >> DB, and requirement for JTA, and any other JTA aware RMs, makes me think >> that the client already has a TM too :-) (e.g. a JEE server).. but I >> agree this is just my personal view and I could be wrong in some cases.. So >> I think we should not hard code anything specific to any of these standalone >> TM's like Atomikos, JOTM etc.. or try to implement this support immediately, >> as a pre-requisite to accept the enhancements we already have. >> >> We should rather be able to bind them (i.e. any standalone TM) to our >> standalone JNDI, and use them as we use any other TM.. the research we need >> here is how to do this.. and I'm sure that some users of these may have >> already achieved this, or the providers of these already knows how to do >> this, and would probably help us. >> >> asankha >> >> Andreas >>> >>> The lightweight transaction managers are definitely good. I personally >>> like Atomikos, but I'm happy to consider any alternatives. Do you have >>> experience with any? >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Andreas Veithen >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Sanjiva, >>>> >>>> The example was just meant to illustrate my point and probably there >>>> are better examples. I just wanted to trigger a discussion about the >>>> direction in which we are going. I agree with the approach outlined by >>>> Paul and I think Asankha gave some very valuable information that we >>>> need to take into account if we want to build higher level transaction >>>> support later. >>>> >>>> My next question is what would be the recommendation to have >>>> distributed transaction support (e.g. between JMS and a database) in a >>>> Synapse stand-alone installation. Is there some lightweight Open >>>> Source transaction manager that one can use (to avoid the burden of >>>> installing a full-featured application server)? I'm thinking about >>>> something as Jencks or JOTM. >>>> >>>> Andreas >>>> >>>> >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org > > -- Ruwan Linton http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform" http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/ ------=_Part_14818_1007674.1227322488322 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Well,

Irantha, it is required to support JTA standalone, but at the same time it is much more important to support the application server translations as well. Most of the time an ESB deployment is going to be on an existing Application Server, though we would like people using ours standalone most of the organizations tend to deploy it like this because of organizational standards and many a reasons. That is what my experience about the deployment of Synapse.

So I think we need to support both...

Thanks,
Ruwan

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Irantha <irantha@wso2.com> wrote:
On my view generally people like to have products that are easy to configure and use. Most of the time its easy to configure and get something working  with a standalone product than with multiple products /clusters. When somebody has to setup another application server to get transactions working, there is more possibility that they will not try it at all or mess it up.
I don't think most of the time people who are going to setup a ESB are doing it for the enjoyment of their leisure time. But I may be wrong.

Thanks,
Irantha




Asankha C. Perera wrote:
Paul / Andreas

I definitely like being able to provide standalone JTA support without a JEE server - like we already support DataSources without a JEE server.

Looking at real world JTA use, one would most definitely agree that JMS and DB's are the most common, though there can and certainly will be other resource managers. Typically a JMS provider (since we don't bundle one), a DB, and requirement for JTA, and any other JTA aware RMs, makes me think that the client already has a TM too :-)    (e.g. a JEE server).. but I agree this is just my personal view and I could be wrong in some cases.. So I think we should not hard code anything specific to any of these standalone TM's like Atomikos, JOTM etc.. or try to implement this support immediately, as a pre-requisite to accept the enhancements we already have.

We should rather be able to bind them (i.e. any standalone TM) to our standalone JNDI, and use them as we use any other TM.. the research we need here is how to do this.. and I'm sure that some users of these may have already achieved this, or the providers of these already knows how to do this, and would probably help us.

asankha

Andreas

The lightweight transaction managers are definitely good. I personally
like Atomikos, but I'm happy to consider any alternatives. Do you have
experience with any?

Paul

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Andreas Veithen
<andreas.veithen@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Sanjiva,

The example was just meant to illustrate my point and probably there
are better examples. I just wanted to trigger a discussion about the
direction in which we are going. I agree with the approach outlined by
Paul and I think Asankha gave some very valuable information that we
need to take into account if we want to build higher level transaction
support later.

My next question is what would be the recommendation to have
distributed transaction support (e.g. between JMS and a database) in a
Synapse stand-alone installation. Is there some lightweight Open
Source transaction manager that one can use (to avoid the burden of
installing a full-featured application server)? I'm thinking about
something as Jencks or JOTM.

Andreas
   


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org




--
Ruwan Linton
http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/
------=_Part_14818_1007674.1227322488322--